> The issues are all clearly very complicated, but the pointers you provide
> seem to elaborate on how fragment identifiers are ineffective for discussing
> portions of resources -- the same conclusion that led Roy not to define them
> as such.
>
> I still believe your terminology definitions were the first to point out the
> actually incompatibility in the specs. Roy, do you have an earlier citation?
TimBL mentioned it at the beginning of the thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Feb/0171.html
I am pretty sure that Dan and I, or Henrik and I, or maybe all three of us,
discussed it at some point in person long before that. I was not involved
in the discussions of RDF.
....Roy